"....everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith. Who then overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." 1 John 5:3-5

"Having ceased to be a
minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of
the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of
Christ."

John identifies
antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ,
sequentially. First, like Bultmann,
Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically
deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern
pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons
upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not
within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside
of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and
mortality; God is not.

Second, the specific
denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in
the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all
things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who
spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num.
12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…”
(Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the
life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the
remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put
their faith in Him. Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the
deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,

“…every spirit
that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and
this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world”
(1 John 4:3).

According to Peter (2
Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable
heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring
destruction upon themselves:

“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the
guardians of belief.” Many thinking
people came at last “to realize that it
was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like
man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it
feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the
University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)

Falling Stars and Damnable
Heresy

Almost thirty years ago,
two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney
Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of
irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars,
necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay'
shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of
society, particularly within the most
influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political
power.

Like many scientists,
they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic
evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause
of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for
authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to
their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted
both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so
startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian
theism. Their findings led them to say:

"It would be a
mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single
theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally
great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess
superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who
have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific
superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new
superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to
scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences
proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and
New," The Skeptical Inquirer,
Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)

In more detail they
observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept
cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized
Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith,
prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two
groups are most disposed toward occultism.

As Bainbridge and
Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the
Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is
the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians
refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and
American society. Nor do they accept the
evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid,
indecisive, or apostate clergy.

Over eighty years ago, Rev.
C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary
theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev.
Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is
the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ,
thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual
disintegration:

“It is a battering-ram
of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion
sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of
God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this
is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a
wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which
can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the
Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)

The faith of the Christian
Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as
much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings
revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the
Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But
how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see
church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending
for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time,
said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,

“…. separated
herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up
to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making
terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the
soul?” (ibid)

The primary tactic employed
by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and
evolutionary thinking is predictable. It
is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we
see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical
context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor
Timothy J. Keller.

With a position paper
Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined
the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to
the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide
into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a
non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy
Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9,
2010, creation.com)

This is not a heresy
unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable
heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the
Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil
the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis,
specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or
allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these
heretics,

“…let us stop up
our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and
following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound
dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)

As St. Cyril of Alexandria
wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple
faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend
rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the
events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview
teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the
Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be
regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important
reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth
is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of
Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible
and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

Scenarios commonly proposed
by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity
subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted
previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God.
This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and
billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations
onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image.
This is not only idolatrous but satanic.

Additionally, evolution
inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell
there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter,
then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of
millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of
years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which
a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places
a soul.

“The most devastating
thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological
evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the
central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and
Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin
there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is
no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the
unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of
Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner,
creation.com, June 13, 2013)

None of this was lost on
Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly
familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the
authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic
and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection
of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the
Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in
part:

“By denying the
historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has
fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of
supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of
God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity
of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks
to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality
takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a
holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is
reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons
come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons
in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist
easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear
from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the
chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity
and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the
bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the
Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be
incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic
evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The
Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)

Huxley had ‘zero’ respect
for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot
coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning,
hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With
sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,

“I am fairly at a loss
to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must
stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The
very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with
Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests
upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no
evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them.
If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were
not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on
the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus;
the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the
creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of
apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of
the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which
is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers
of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely
accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations
of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas
Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)

Pouring more contempt
on them he asked,

“When Jesus spoke, as of
a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did
he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as
the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good
scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were
given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking
might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story.
Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s
methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If
no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than
the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in
the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the
“coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers
to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France,
in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but
of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed
and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)

Concerning Matthew
19:5:

“If divine authority is
not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis,
what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose
with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the
foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)

And concerning Cor.
15:21-22:

“If Adam may be held to
be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is
merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus,
what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)

After much thought, C.S.
Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center
of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled
while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of
another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men
lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising
Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To
contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that
it should be done while reverence is professed,

“…. is an
illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom
God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John
3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that
declaration, without blasphemy.”

Evolutionary theists are
serving the devil, therefore “no
considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian
leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from
compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus
Christ.” (ibid)

The rebuttals,
warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their
modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist
operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is
not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church
Fathers.

From the scholarly writings
of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the
Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke,
and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear,
compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional
doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke
and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to
submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the
damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace
naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it
seem evil to you to serve the Lord,

“…you have your choice:
choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for
me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15